D-pad

The last article we will be covering for our readings comes from gamestudies.org. Penned by Mia Consalvo and Nathan Dutton, and titled Game Analysis: Developing a Methodological Toolkit for the Qualitative Study of Games, the article attempts to create a methodological research toolkit with which to analyze videogames using four categories: “Object Inventory, Interface Study, Interaction Map, and Gameplay Log.”

The authors begin by describing “previous empirical work” (listing off several examples) of game studies that stem from one of two approaches: player studies or studies concerning critiques of the medium. Bringing up studies by Brooker, the authors clarify that despite his attempt to create an “early template for [videogame] analysis”, Brooker “does not lay out why... elements of [“institution, authorship, character and narrative, genre and socio-political connotations and remakes”] were chosen as opposed to other components.” This lack of intention on the critic’s part is the core focus of the paper- the authors attempt to create a definitive base from which analysis can be conducted.

The next four sections of the paper discuss the authors’ main categories used to create a methodological base with which to study videogames.

The first category up for discussion is “Object Inventory”. The authors’ state:

    

A useful way for researchers to understand the role that objects can play in a game is to create an object inventory that catalogues all known objects that can be found, bought, stolen, or created, and produce a detailed list or spreadsheet that lists various properties of each item.

From this collected data, the authors claim a plethora of research questions can become apparent, and will yield some type of results (the directed outcome of which is not specified). As an example, they consider Nintendo’s Pokemon, for which they state the games main purpose is the collection of all the Pokemon creatures. Despite being an interesting thought on the collection concept, associated with pleasure principles of gameplay in Pokemon, the actual purpose behind Pokemon is to become the Pokemon Master (which does not require you to complete your collection but defeat the current champion, a Boss NPC). Yet, despite this discrepancy, the idea of studying the collecting of particular “objects”, as classified by an “Object Inventory” could yield interesting results involving allegorical representation within the game system/informatic structures (which could also yield social, political, economic, etc. critique). To further clarify the role of “object” as a central category, the authors discuss the PC game The Sims and that, through an “Object Inventory” one can see that “objects are overall less important to Sim relationships than Sim-to-Sim interaction.”

The next section of the paper discusses the authors’ category “Interface Study” where they define the “interface” as:

[A]ny on-screen information that provides the player with information concerning the life, health, location or status of the character(s), as well as battle or action menus, nested menus that control options such as advancement grids or weapon selections, or additional screens that give the player more control over manipulating elements of gameplay.   

Using Galloway as a frame of reference from earlier readings, I took this category as a compendium of non-diagetic gameplay elements (a list of which can be found in the above quote) that the player maintains semi-control over (semi because there are still limitations to the options available). Through this category, the authors attend to several examples, all of which relate to Galloway’s ideas behind informatics and videogame “systems” containing allegory for the modern world. Again, the authors’ main focus for illustration is The Sims.  They discuss Sim-to-Sim interaction as being a context for sexuality, as opposed to character creation options with menus (in-game interactions with other NPCs determine sexuality; if this is the case, then Sim-to-Sim interaction yields the highest possibility for in-game, gamic options, rather than pre-determined variables).

Thirdly, the authors discuss their category “Interaction Map”, which (although containing the word “Map”) pertains to NPC and other player-avatar interactions. Which player options become available through play is the main focus of this category. The authors then present a series of questions that could possibly be used by the researcher to further analysis. The authors return back to The Sims as an example of this category where they dissect the “social meter” of the game’s mechanics (the “social meter” (a fairly binary scale with different degrees of severity) determines one Sim’s relationship to another and can be changed over gameplay interactions). Routing their discussion back to sexuality, the authors conclude that by analyzing The Sims via an “Interaction Map”, a researcher can come to partial conclusions “on how sexuality is constructed in the game, as well as the (many) choices the game affords to individual players.”

Lastly, the authors discuss their category for base methodological research, the “Gameplay Log”, where:

[T]he researcher studies such things as emergent behaviour or situations, the larger game world or system, and intertextuality as it is constituted with the game.

I found this category to be extremely broad, and the authors also contend that the “elements [of this category] can be quite variable depending on the game and genre chosen for analysis” and can even include “glitches” or “bugs” not intended by the game authors. Consalvo and Dutton then lay forth a series of possible questions the researcher may use in order to further their analysis, which they claim “helps in creating a coherence for the analysis” alongside the other categories. In the last paragraph of this section the authors regard The Sims as a “text” which “deconstructs” sexuality and “reconfigures” it by “pok[ing] and prod-teasing players to think about sexual orientation and sexuality, how it is defined and expressed, exploring assumptions and challenging accepted practices” through a consistent system utilizing “objects”, “interactivity”, and “emergent behaviour/the larger game world” as a method with which to express social change.

Although the implications of this article serve as only a starting point for a field very much in its infancy, I found it to be rather generalized and yet focused mainly on one particular subject: The Sims. Although each of the four categories could be used in essence to begin critical analysis, I found the spectrum of each category not only to be extremely broad, but also at times to overlap with the other categories.  This overlap creates confusion as to how one should organize their data (where does one draw the line between “game world” and “interface”?). Allowing for such broad sweeping strokes within your research could lead to findings imposed on the data, rather than as a result of the research itself.